Corp. U.S. Mythology

This is a WARNING! Regardless of how much you have read, studied or “learned”, and regardless of how good it sounded or how real it seemed at the time, it is possible that, regardless of the source, what you thought was true might simply be a myth. This becomes a particularly difficult situation when the source of the information upon which such beliefs are formed came from authoritative sources like: parents, teachers, schools, governmental officials, official media sources, etc. Because so much of the information found on the internet (and in other media sources) was generated by third party sources that have little or no substantive or authoritative base, such sources are not reliable. Nonetheless, when people read or study from such sources they begin to develop opinions they convince themselves they learned the truth from a reliable source. However, taking actions based upon such unreliable sources can have quite devastating effects!

This is particularly bothersome when the information provided by such sources becomes the substance of mythology; and, those myths grow to become part of the traditional thinking—knowledge base—of the people. Nonetheless, such myths remain myths; no matter how many people believe in them.

Therefore, wise people never believe anyone or any source, just because the information received sounds good; instead, they first learn how to learn the truth, the law and history by following the Standard for Review and so proving the facts that confirm the truth with actual evidence. Respectively, we admonish our readers not to believe us, or anyone else, just because you see or hear something that sounds good. You need evidence; the quality of which is at least good enough to support the facts if they were presented as evidence in court.

To reveal most mythology we simply follow the admonition from Foundational Law (the Bible), “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” KJV Bible, 2 Corinthians 13:1

With that admonition it seems wise to do your own research, not trusting hearsay from any source. Let the two or three witnesses be factual records of law and history each of which are verifiable by a variety of actual substantial sources; like: the law itself and actual verifiable historical records supporting the same. This is one of the reasons we always say: “Don’t believe us or anyone else on such matters. Do your own research and prove the truth for your self.”

We always feel such research is best done with the assistance of prayer made with a sincere heart and real intent; asking our Father in Heaven for guidance to know the truth. Thus, to discern the truth we: First, pray for guidance; Second, following the Standard for Review, study—and discover the truth from you own firsthand research; repeat research done by other sources; get several actual source records of Law and History that confirm the accuracy of what you learn; Third, pray again asking if what you have discovered is not true. Only when you have so discovered and understand the truth for yourself by your own firsthand experience is it reasonable to take action.
Now on to revealing some the Mythology spread about and or by what appears to be government:

Our purpose in presenting these Corp. U.S. myths is to inspire you to actually start learning the law firsthand from its source.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 1:
The District of Columbia Act of 1871 incorporated the municipal government of the District of Columbia into a municipal corporation.

From time to time people ask us questions similar to the following:

“An initial review of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 seems like it only incorporates a local government (like Chicago or Seattle); how do you get that they formed a private corporation?”

If you take the Act out of its historical context and, from the present, look to the Act, in the past, not knowing its history, then merely imagine who are the parties involved, you might agree with the presupposition that the Act merely incorporated a municipality. However, such a review will not help you understand the meaning of any actual Act; thus, to best understand what actually happened we follow our “Standard for Review” to first discover the history behind the relationship; and, second, we look to the terms and conditions of the Act, by reviewing the Act itself, to see how it fits in accord with law and our history.

Standard for Review

Rule 1: To understand any relationship you must:

First understand who the parties are (from their origin);

Always know yourself first (start at Genesis 1:26–29);

Discover the true nature of all other parties second;

Then you must understand the historical and environmental nature of the relationship; and,

Only then can you understand how applicable laws may effect the relationship; thus, it’s time to study such laws.

Rule 2: Review the details of the relationship in question only after you have completed the review required by Rule 1, then review the actual terms of the relationship and the details in question in accord with what you learned from applying Rule 1.

Thus, to understand the parties involved in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (hereinafter, “DCOA”), we must first understand who are the parties involved in the relationship as described by the Act. We are not going to delve into the Act here, in its entirety; suffice it to say, looking over the situation, we find the Act is one made by the original jurisdiction government’s Congress, as set by the Constitution for the United States of America. The DCOA describes its venue as: “all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia”. The District of Columbia was originally provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America (Sept. 17, 1787) at Article 1 Section 8, specifically in the last two clauses. Then, on July 16, 1790, in accord with the provisions of those clauses, the Territory was formed in the District of Columbia Act, wherein the “ten mile square” territory was permanently created and made the permanent location of the country’s government; that is to say, the “territory” so provided for included both the land and its actual government. Under that Act, Congress also made the President the civic leader of the local government in all matters in said Territory. Then, on February 27, 1801, under the second District of Columbia Act, two counties were formed and their respective officers and district judges were appointed. Further, the established town governments of Alexandria, Georgetown and Washington were recognized as constituted and placed under the laws of the District, its judges, etc. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly called this Act (of, February 27, 1801) the “District of Columbia Organization Act” or the “Charter Act of the District of Columbia” and recognized it as the incorporation of the “municipality” known as the “District of Columbia”. Then, on March 3, 1801, a Supplementary Act to that last Act, noted here, added the authority that the Marshals appointed by the respective District Court Judges collectively form a County Commission with the authority to appoint all officers as may be needed in similarity to the respective State officials in the states whence the counties Washington and Alexandria came, those being: Maryland and Virginia, respectively.

According to the United States Supreme Court those charter acts (first acts) were the official incorporation of the formal government (with its municipalities) of the District of Columbia as chartered by Congress in accord with the Constitution’s provision. Again, the Supreme Court called that body of government “a corporation”, with the right to sue and be sued. Respectively, since 1801, the District of Columbia has been consistently recognized as a “municipal corporation” with its own government.

That sets the basics for the first rule of our Standard for Review, ‘know the parties’. What we have presented is sufficient to show the basics of who the parties are as they related to resolving the answer to the question above. We admonish everyone to prove the facts for themselves by their own research.

The second rule from our Standard for Review is: “Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship.” With that in mind let’s consider the events of the time: the Civil War had recently ended and the country was still under Lincoln’s Conscription Act (Martial Law). Congress had at least three problems they could see no way to directly cure by following the laws of the land (as constituted): they were out of funds, they had promised 40 acres of land to each slave that left the South to fight for the North and they had to reintegrate the south into the Union; which they could not do without controlling the appointment of the Southern States Congressional members. There were other problems; but, these three stand out from the rest. That is enough about the environment for the purposes of this review; however, the more you study the historical events of this time, the more obvious the relationships will become and the more proof you will amass to prove the facts of what actually happened. In the interest of time, space and the topic of this response, we will move on.

The last step of the Standard for Review’s discovery process requires a review of the actual terms of the relationship. Thus, we review the first paragraph of the DCOA; where:

Congress wrote:

That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes … and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation.

Given that even the Supreme Court confirms that the government of the District of Columbia was already “created into a government”, so formed into a municipal incorporation in 1801 under the District of Columbia Acts, we wonder, even with Congress’ constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District, how do you create, or incorporate, for the first time, a municipal government that has already been in existence as a municipal corporation for over 70 years? The obvious answer is, “It’s impossible!” There is no way to pass an “Organic Act” when the “Charter Act” is already in place, because the two words (organic and charter) have the same meaning—The First Act.

Though historians can make history appear to change by rewriting it for those unwilling to study the past from the actual records of the past. Even Congress cannot change the actual history. However, the records speak for themselves only if, and when, we study them.

When you consider the historical facts, the only meaning left for the terms given in the opening paragraph of the DCOA (and that which follows) is, the municipal corporation that was created is a private corporation owned by the actual government. Further, the only government created in that Act was the same form of private government any private corporation has within the operation of its own corporate construct. Thus, we coined the term, “Corp. U.S.”; to distinguish that corporation from the actual “original jurisdiction” government; as it was formed in accord with the Constitution for the United States of America.

We also note Congress reserved the right, granted them in said Constitution, to pass and enforce virtually any law within the District of Columbia; which is almost complete dictatorial authority over their Corp. U.S. construct, without regard for its internal operations or officers. Thus, Congress can lawfully use Corp. U.S. as they see fit, within that portion of the ten mile square defined as the District of Columbia. Respectively (through that authority); the members of Congress now wore two hats; one hat for their original jurisdiction government official seat and a second more effective hat as as a corporate board member titled with the same names: “Congressman”; “Representative” or “Senator”; the President also effectively wore two similar hats.

Thus, our historical records and laws clearly show that Corp. U.S. is not merely an incorporated municipality; rather, it is a private Corporation that was lawfully created by our original jurisdiction government

Myth resolved.

We find no legal or lawful problem with the formation of Corp. U.S.; as shown above, the Constitution provided Congress with the authority to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District of Columbia; however, with the creation of such a thing; the people would have to remain more vigilant to make sure that such a corporation was not used to extend authoritarian power beyond bounds of said District to usurp authoritarian styled power over the people of the nation by force.

Of course, because the people failed to exercise such vigilance, that is exactly what is happening today. Respectively, the only way to peacefully remedy this situation is the people must learn the law and apply it to restore our original jurisdiction government (see: Governor’s Corner).

Such a remedy is exactly why Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve our peace, your freedom and our nation. Of course, so long as people continue to focus their minds on imagining doom and gloom because of what they think other people are, or are not, willing to do, they limit themselves from the only thing that keeps them from becoming part of the solution instead of part of the problem. In that regard, most people seem to sit in a ‘catch-22’; because they have already imagined the world is getting worse and they are not willing to believe that they can do anything to change that, they limit themselves from doing anything to change that vision. Thus, that limit keeps them from being successful.

The solution is simple, because it starts with each one of us and there is no time like the present to start making a difference. We have repeatedly proven that learning and applying the law works. And, History proves that, even at the worst of times, the best opportunities of our lives can only happen if we take the first step. Therefore, as you start to move in the right direction to create a powerful positive future for yourself—the world starts to change—you make it a better place.

The first step is to imagine that powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—What would that wish be?” Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 2:
The United States Government is sovereign.

On the outset of this review we acknowledge that because “The United States of America” is a nation of sovereign people, it is a sovereign nation. Though that fact alone should make it clear that the government is, and must remain, the servant of the people not their sovereign, Corp. U.S. promotes the ideology that it cannot be sued because it alleges that it is “Sovereign”. That myth is easily resolved by reviewing the 1871 DCOA, under which, Corp. U.S. was created. It clearly states that Corp. U.S. can be sued. Respectively, the myth is resolved because sovereign cannot be sued within its own realm without its permission. Nonetheless, we are not willing to rely on that alone to resolve the myth. Instead, let’s review the
three elements that define sovereignty in comparison to the government, Corp. U.S. and the people.

Sovereignty is a political power that is defined by: dominion, agency and possession:

“Dominion” is synonymous with “Land”, which is defined as: “(A)n area of three dimensional space, its position being defined by natural or imaginary points located by reference to the earth’s surface. ‘Land’ is not the fixed contents of that space, although…the owner of that space may well own those fixed contents. Land is immoveable, as distinct from chattels, which are moveable; it is also, in its legal significance, indestructible. The contents of the space may be physically severed, destroyed or consumed, but the space itself, and so the ‘land’, remains immutable.” Peter Butt, Land Law 9 (2nd ed. 1988) Reprinted in Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition;

The government of The United States of America was: formed by the Constitution for the United States of America; and is limited in its authority by said Constitution; which forbids the government from owning land with the exception of that which is necessary to accomplish the following: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”. Said Constitution, Article. 1. §. 8. Clause 17.;

Accordingly, when a territory (land) is acquired by The United States of America that land is held for dispossession to the people; who, under a proper claim are granted private Title (land patent) to the land; wherein, most of those patents (outside of the original 13 States & Texas; which came from foreign kings) were granted by the United States of America, under the hand and seal of the President of The United States of America;

Respectively, the land mass of The United States of America is secured by land patents (Titles) that grant the land to private individuals (and to their heirs and assigns);

“Agency” is the right, or authority, to act, influence, exert power over and/or control a specific domain.

The purpose the people gave for forming their Constitutional Republic form of government was, and remains: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, said Constitution’s Preamble; respectively, a review of said Constitution shows that: not only did the people never grant said government authority over the people or over their rights to Life, Liberty or Property, they reserved that all such rights, etc. remain with the people (see: amendments 9. and 10.);

The agency so granted to the government of The United States of America is limited to the specific authority the people collectively granted the government to act, for the people, through said Constitution; which only allows government the limited authority to administrate that small portion of the peoples’ collective sovereign authority necessary to accomplish the provisions of said Constitution;

Said governmental agency does not include agency over the private land owned and occupied by said people; and,

The people retain their private agency over the land they own.

“Possession” is the actual control or physical occupancy of a specific domain and the property appurtenant to the same.

The government of The United States of America does not possess the private land owned and occupied by said people; and,

The people possess the private land owned and occupied by them.

By definition, the government is not sovereign; and,

By definition, the people that: own, retain the agency over and possess the land (dominion) are sovereign.

Therefore, because even the original jurisdiction government of The United States of America does not possess any of the three factors, all of which are, necessary to Sovereignty (dominion, agency & possession), it cannot possibly either be sovereign or respectively, rule over the people (as a sovereign could do).

Nevertheless, even though said government is not sovereign, that does not limit the nation from being sovereign; because said people are sovereign and together those people form a “Nation of Sovereigns”; which “Nation of Sovereigns” used said Constitution to create a government (“of the people, by the people and for the people”) and to grant said government the collective administrative authority necessary for our government to stand in the world of nations representing the sovereign people of The United States of America; and to, in accord with said Constitution only, control the several States of the Union.

Therefore, government of “The United States of America” is not itself sovereign; rather, its officers are merely granted the authority to collectively administrate a small portion of the peoples’ sovereignty.

Respectively, when the original jurisdiction government created Corp. U.S. (in accord with the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871), it did not possess authority to grant Corp. U.S. sovereign authority (see: Osborne vs Bank US, 22 US 738), it couldn’t possibly have granted Corp. U.S. sovereign authority. However, as a private corporation, Corp. U.S. was granted the authority to sue and/or be sued. We expect the reason Corp. U.S. consistently claims to be a sovereign is to imply the Sovereign’s advantage of not being able to be sued in their own domain.

Myth resolved.

Because Corp. U.S. is often referred to as just: “United States”; and, because court cases exist that recognize the “United States” as sovereign, it is at times important to review such cases for two things:

Does the nature of the case imply that it was ruled with regard to Corp. U.S.; or, was it ruled with regard to the nation itself?

Did the parties in the case that were attempting to sue the “United States” raise a reasonable argument to show the elements shared above that would limit such a ruling from being made to look as it it were made in favor of Corp. U.S. itself instead of the actual Nation of Sovereign People; which cannot be collectively sued.

The reason people raise such cases and then fail to present a proper argument that keeps the court from ruling on matters that do not apply to the case is that they do not know the law well enough to avoid such errors.

Please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can properly apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step to preserving that freedom is believing that it is possible—believing in such a future comes from first imagining having that freedom as you see yourself creating a powerful positive future; and noticing how that feels. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 3:
Before 1913 the Constitution of the United States of America had only 15 Articles of Amendment. This Myth is perhaps more commonly know by Corp. U.S’. allegation that:
“The original 13th amendment was never ratified”.

Given the following three facts:

Corp. U.S. was incorporated under the District of Columbia Act of 1871 (hereinafter, “DCOA”);

Within the DCOA Corp. U.S. adopted its own constitution; which Corp. U.S. deemed the: “United States Constitution”; and,

Corp. U.S.’ new “United States Constitution” is missing the Nation’s 13th Article of amendment.

Respectively, with two principle exceptions, Corp. U.S.’ new constitution was identical in every way to the “Constitution of the United States of America”; those two exceptions were:

As noted above, the Constitution of the United States of America’s 13th Article of amendment is not included in Corp. U.S.’ new constitution; and,

Respectively, the Constitution of the United States of America’s 14th, 15th and 16th articles of amendment: are respectfully numbered: 13th, 14th and 15th in Corp. U.S.’ new constitution.

Soon, we will flesh out this article with the elements and records that prove this myth. Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 4:
The 16th Amendment gave the government the right to tax without apportionment.

This myth was promoted by Corp. U.S. after its adopted its constitution’s 16th Article of amendment.

However, a review of the Supreme Court case rulings both before and after that amendment clearly show that no such authority was granted. Instead the amendment merely acknowledged that Corp. U.S. already possessed the right to so tax their agents and other parties with whom they had private contracts that authorized the same.

Soon, we will flesh out this article with the elements that prove the facts of this myth. Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 5:
The United States Senators that have served since 1913 are Senators of the government that was formed by the Constitution for the United States of America.

To understand this myth, first, notice where Senators come from. Like other Corp. U.S. elected officials, U.S. Senators are elected from a popular vote; which means that their only real experiential qualification is they must: “Win the election.”

Of course, that means knowing the Constitution and/or having experience with the law-making process is not a qualification necessary for obtaining the office. Respectively, given that most people so elected as U.S. Senators have little or no experience that would make them aware of the fact that Corp. U.S. is a corporation that was created under the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, instead they believe in Corp. U.S. Myth 1; respectively, the fact that, Corp. U.S. is not the government that was created by the Constitution for the United States of America completely escapes them.

Thus, when new Corp. U.S. officials take office (overwhelmed with work that needs to be done to face problems inherent to the office), their preconceptions (related to Corp. U.S. Myth 1) on arrival, make them woefully equipped for the tasks at hand. Thus, they are indoctrinated with the assumed belief that whatever is already in place is not only lawful and proper but the natural order of things in our government. Thus, as time passes the newbie imagines things are being done correctly; which is often not the case. Accordingly, over time, if the people are not vigilante in their responsibility of limiting such offices to the authority lawful provided, the officers will begin to exercise authoritarian powers much as those that may have preceded them in that office.

In such cases, problems are compounded by the people failing to notice that Corp. U.S. is not our actual government; but, is merely the corporation the original jurisdiction government put in place (in 1871) to take care of the government’s business needs and aid them in the process of assimilating the South back into the country. Of course, given that most of the functions of Congress are business needs, by 1913, virtually all of the functions of government were performed for the government by Corp U.S. (wherein the members of Congress and the President used only their corporate capacity).

Respectfully, in 1913, Corp. U.S. passed and ratified its own 16th and 17th amendments to its constitution. That 17th amendment changed how Corp.U.S. Senators acquire office; and, from that time, Corp. U.S. Senators were elected by popular vote. However, because the nation’s Constitution forbids Congress from any authority to change where Senators are elected, Corp. U.S’. 17th amendment cannot have been an amendment that could be posed, passed or lawfully ratified by an original jurisdiction Congress; respectfully, that amendment can only function as a Corp. U.S. amendment. A physical verification of the record also shows that at the time of the alleged ratification, Corp. U.S. followed the same method of “ratification” that it did for the 16th amendment (i.e.: it was adopted by the members of Congress instead of ratified by ⅔ of the States).

Respectfully, from that day forth, Corp. U.S. Senators were elected by popular vote; while, the original jurisdiction Congress’ Senators for each State continue to be appointed by the respective State’s Senate or by the Governor of each State; as per, the Constitution for the United States of America (if in fact they are seated at all—in most cases, the seats remain vacant).

Accordingly, since the Corp. U.S. adoption of its 17th amendment, in 1913, and the States stopped sending original jurisdiction Senators to the nation’s Senate. Instead, every six years, at election time, each Corp. State holds a popular election for their respective Corp. U.S. Senator and those are the only kind of Senators each State has been sending to Washington, D.C. for quite some time. Therefore, those Corp. U.S. Senators no longer possess the capacity to sit in the original jurisdiction Senate. (To remedy this problem, we have been helping the people reseat their original jurisdiction government through our Reseat America page.)

Though the preceding information effectively provides sufficient information to help any interested party research the evidences to show these facts are correct, we may add more to this article to further debunk this myth. Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can learn to apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is accomplish this starts with each of us, individually. We have to first believe it can be done. We have found that such belief come best to those that act upon their responsibility to learn the law. Once that happens, people begin to learn how easy and risk free the process is. The law is actually quite simple; anyone can learn it. Once you discover that, you can easily imagine what would happen if each of us just starts to apply the law—the outcome of that is an incredible vision of a powerful positive future.

You can start creating that vision today by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!

Then, go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 6:
President Woodrow Wilson served as President of the United States of America in its original jurisdiction Constitutional Republic form of government for two full terms of office.

Though this topic is under construction, we will introduce this myth now my simply noting that President Wilson did so serve for one term. However, after he was elected, by the Electoral College, for his second term, his election was confirmed by a Corp. U.S. only Congress; but, such a Corp. U.S. confirmation could not possibly lawfully qualify as confirmation into the original jurisdiction government’s presidential office for his second term; because that confirming body of congressmen included Senators that had no original jurisdiction capacity.

Soon, we will flesh out this article with the elements that prove the facts of this myth. Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 7:
Federal Reserve Notes are money.

Though this myth is easily understood, debunked and resolved by simply understanding the facts of what money is and what Federal Reserve Notes (hereinafter: “FRNs”) are not, this myth is one of the most difficult myths to eliminate for three powerful reasons:

Acceptance; virtually everyone accepts and uses FRNs as the currency base for virtually all of their buy, sell and/or exchange transactions; just as if FRNs were actually money;

Ignorance; so many of the people believe the myth that they simply ignore the facts—not wanting to know the truth: and,

Apathy; that is to say: those that are caught up in the effects of this myth believe that even though it may be true that this is a myth—it works—so, they rhetorically ask: “What’s the big deal?” “What difference does it make?” Respectfully the concluding (even before they ask): “There is nothing we can do about it.” And, there they remain, unmovable and unwilling to learn—because they are afraid of change!

Because this myth stands at the basis of virtually every financial transaction and is such a basic element of every day life, we tend to overlook the pernicious effect of the myth; as if it were a necessity of modern life. However, this myth stands at the basis of the most incredible hoax ever foisted upon an unsuspecting people; wherefore, this myth must be uncovered and resolved before our nation is lost under the burden of this myth’s effect. Of course, one must also understand this myth to either live free or in honor of the First Command man received from God.

To debunk this myth you must understand three things:

You must know the meaning of the word “money”; and understand its usage both in the Constitution (as the founding fathers intended it) and the effect the subsequent laws, etc. as they adjusted that meaning over time;

You must know what FRNs are, how they came into existence and how they are and have been legally and lawfully used over time; and,

You must know the effect the use of FRNs (instead of money) has had on our nation; which has been far greater than the mere introduction of economic fluctuations (inflation, recession, market crashes, etc.); their use has been the basis for a complete shift in the political structure of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a Communistic Oligarchy.

We know that the third element of that list seems almost impossible to most people; but, the facts and history are unmistakable. So, being forewarned, please know that learning the truth will not only open the possibilities of resolving this myth, but, it will make it possible to learn how to use the system (even as it is currently managed) to help restore our original jurisdiction government to its Constitutional Republic form while maintaining peace, prosperity and functionality in both our nation and in our homes. So, let’s get on with the debunking of this myth by reviewing its basic elements.

Though the word ‘money” is used in the Constitution 6 times, it is not therein defined; thus, to understand what the founding fathers intended when they so used that word, we must turn to sources like, The Law of Nations and dictionaries of the time period to discover the common usage of the word. The established dictionary most used then was: Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary. However, FRNs did not exist at that time; so, though that definition of money might be construed to include such things as what later became known as FRNs; by 1913, when the first FRNs were made, Congress had been implementing the authority so granted to the government, in accord with the Constitution for well over 100 years and the meaning of money (as used in the Constitution had been significantly refined. Still, as time passed the applicability of the term, as used in the Constitution, became more refined (by respective laws, statutes, regulations, etc.) until its usual use was accurately published in BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 4th Edition, p. 1157, as:

“MONEY. In usual and ordinary acceptation it means gold, silver, or paper money used as circulating medium of exchange, And does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate. Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W.2d 74, 79, 81.”

Still, to understand what FRNs are, it is best to go back to their creation and learn from that source what their history tells us; and, to understand that history you have to first understand that Corp. U.S. was created in 1871 (see Corp U.S. Myth 1). Then, in 1909, the parties that had bought up most of the Corp. U.S. bonds (which came due in 1912) began the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank (hereinafter “FRB”). When those bonds came due in 1912, Corp. U.S’. Congress believed the FRB founders had created the FRB for the purpose of establishing a reserve for supporting future loans for Corp. U.S. However, though the FRB of 1913 had plenty of money (gold and Silver coin minted by the United States of America Mint), the FRB made it quite clear that the FRB was not willing to loan any money to Corp. U.S. Instead they offered that if Corp. U.S. wanted to learn about how the FRB operated, they would have to come down to the FRB headquarters on Jekyll Island, off the cost of Georgia, to find out about it.

The Jekyll Island offer went like this: the FRB would not loan money to Corp. U.S. However, if Corp. U.S. could get the American people to use the FRB’s FRNs as if they were money, then the FRB would provide Corp. U.S. the use of such FRNs at an annual usage rate (rent). In other words, Corp. U.S. could use (rent) the FRNs at a specific rate related to the arbitrary value printed on the face of the so called notes. The deal included that the use rate (rental) would only accrue so long as the note was in circulation and it would then be due and payable. The FRB also offered the following incentive: they guaranteed that if Corp. U.S. could get the people to accept these notes in circulation as if they were money, the FRB would guarantee their exchange by redeeming the notes from the people at their face value in United States of America gold or silver coin money. Thus, so long as the notes remained in circulation, the rent accrued; and, until the rent was paid it compounded with interest at the same rate as the rent accrued.

Corp. U.S. accepted the offer.

To understand the deal let’s take a closer look: it works a lot like a car loan (rental) where the car is borrowed at the specific rate agreed upon. You pay the rate of the rental agreement and you get to keep the car for the term of the agreement. In the case of the FRB’s rental of their FRNs, Corp. U.S. could borrow (rent) the notes, which had a specific face value printed on them, and the rental rate was set respective of that value at the time of the agreement. Let’s say the rental rate was set at 3%. That means that as long as Corp. U.S. keeps those specific FRNs, they have to pay 3% of the notes’ face value per year. Thus, if they were to borrow $100,000.00 total face value in FRNs for a day, they would have to pay $8.22 cents in rental costs for the use of those FRNs for that day. If they were to hold such notes for a year, they would have to pay, $3,000.00 in rental costs for the use of the notes. Anyone could return the FRNs to the FRB at any time and Corp. U.S. would only have to pay the agreed upon rental fee (plus any accrued interest) for the time the notes were held or were in circulation. The deal also included the provision that if the people (anyone other than Corp. U.S.) were to turn the notes in to the FRB, the FRB would redeem the notes for their face value in real money (U.S. minted gold or silver coins) paid to the people that returned the FRNs.

In 1913, that was all there was to it. The notes were rented and put into circulation much like a car is rented. As you can see this appears to be a very good deal for Corp. U.S. if the people, in mass, omit the process of exchanging the FRNs for gold and silver coins—which they did. And, for the next 20 years, Corp. U.S. continued to rent FRNs from the FRB; however, they never paid any of the rent due; so, over time, the interest on the unpaid debt continued to rise and compound.

In 1933, because Corp. U.S. continually failed to pay any of their obligations made in accord with their agreements with the FRB; accordingly when the FRB called the debt, Corp. U.S. went bankrupt to the FRB. Corp. U.S. had amassed so much debt in unpaid rent and interest on said rent that it could not possibly pay its debt. However, Corp. U.S. needed to continue to function! Therefore, they went to the FRB to negotiate terms for getting a new set of notes into circulation. Though the settlement offer arrived at was temporary, it allowed for a new set of FRNs to be printed and exchanged with the old notes that remained in circulation; and, Corp. U.S. had to agree to start at least paying some of the interest on the outstanding debt that forced them into bankruptcy.

Respectively, Congress announced an emergency “banking holiday” where the local banks throughout the country were closed and all of the FRNs were removed from the local banks and returned to the FRB; thus, beginning the end of the old style FRNs (redemption guaranteed in gold or silver coin). During the “holiday” the banks were also restocked with new notes from the FRB. The new FRB deal included new rented transaction instruments: also called, “Federal Reserve Notes”; but, where the FRNs the people were familiar with stated words to the effect of, “redeemable at any Federal Reserve Bank”, the new notes stated, “this note is legal tender for all debts public and private”. The new FRNs were acquired by Corp. U.S. and circulated in virtually the same manner as the old FRNs; nonetheless, they were not redeemable; except in “like kind”. Therefore, if the people were to take the new FRNs to the FRB they would receive a “like kind” exchange of notes, new for old.

Though the original FRB deal was better for the people, the new deal fit with the law of notes which only requires a like kind exchange. To the people, because they knew they could always exchange the old FRNs for actual gold or silver coin money at the FRB, they became accustomed to the ease of exchange of the notes in commerce (using them like actual money used in monetary exchanges), they originally treated the FRNs just like money; again, because it was directly exchangeable for money. However, though the new notes were perceived as being far less valuable and prone to inflation, they still functioned just like the old FRNs in commerce. In reality, it is easy to understand why; both the new and the old FRNs were acquired in the same fashion, they were arbitrarily printed on paper and rented into circulation, much like cars are rented in car rental agreements. The FRB simply no longer backs the FRNs with gold and silver coin money, due to Corp. U.S.’ bankrupt status; as a bankrupted entity Corp. U.S. can no longer compel performance on its debts.

To accomplish the FRB’s requirement that Corp. U.S. start paying at least the interest on their outstanding debt, Corp. U.S. needed a new source for funding; respectively, Corp. U.S. passed and enacted the Social Security Act of 1935; under which Act Corp. U.S. created new agency called the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) and started marketing a program the President called: “The New Deal”. In reality, said SSA Act of 1935 was simply the means for generating the excess capital Corp. U.S. needed to start paying said outstanding interest.

Now, given the facts of the SSA cardholder relationship (see: Corp. U.S. Myth 9), let’s look at how SSC cardholders interface with FRNs and or Money; and, at this point take notice of the fact that FRNs are not now and never have been “money”; rather, from the actual records of our history we learned they are merely transaction instruments that were rented by Corp. U.S. (in their bankruptcy) and marketed into circulation. On their face, they simply appear to be notes (likely made in compliance with the law of notes); respectively, their appearance leaves one with the belief that they may be bearer notes with no facially published due date; which would imply that they are due and payable on demand. And, whereas their specific conditions of existence are not otherwise described on the note, they can only compel redemption in like kind. That is to say, if you present them to their maker you can only count on getting back more notes of the same nature. Whereas the note was generated for Corp. U.S., who remains under the control of its 1933 bankruptcy, the note cannot be an instrument of substance; rather, it remains a rented transaction instrument signifying said bankruptcy debt. In other words, the FRB arbitrarily creates FRNs (out of thin air) so it can rent them to Corp. U.S.’ to use as instruments of exchange to manage their bankruptcy.

Though the FRN may appear to be a debt instrument, in reality it is simply an official transaction instrument used to formally exchange debits and credits between Corp. U.S. agencies (see: Patriot Myth 22). It therefore requires no backing and can be generated in accord with the needs for its flow in circulation.

The bottom line: FRNs are not money; rather, they are merely rented transaction instruments used by Corp. U.S. to account for and track their agencies as they build up assets; however, that subject is elemental to the following: “Corp. U.S. Myth 9.”

On, September 2, 2014, we discussed this Myth on our morning Conference Call;
which you can listen to now as follows:

Loading the player ...

Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—What would that change be?” Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 8:
The Government of the United States of America went bankrupt in 1933.

Though this topic is under construction, we will introduce the facts now my simply noting that: by 1920 all of the officers serving in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the original jurisdiction government had been replaced with Corp. U.S. only officers and, respectively, Corp. U.S. abandoned the constitutionally set Treasury of the United States of America. Thus, all of the original jurisdiction government seats were vacated. Further, the debt in question in the bankruptcy was privately agreed to between Corp. U.S. and the private Federal Reserve Bank; and, it was Corp. U.S. that failed to pay any of the rent and/or interest on that rent, so agreed upon, that was the cause of the bankruptcy. Accordingly, the original jurisdiction government never had any involvement with either that agreed upon debt or with the following bankruptcy that was caused by Corp. U.S’. failure to pay their obligation to that debt. Respectfully, today, not only does the original jurisdiction government have nothing to do with that debt (and its related bankruptcy), Corp. U.S. owes the original jurisdiction government (and respectively the people) more money than there is on the face of the planet.

Soon, we will flesh out this article with the elements that prove the facts of this myth. Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 9:
Social Security participation is mandatory.

This is myth has been regularly promoted by Corp. U.S. for many years; however, no law supports this myth. From its inception the Social Security system has been maintained as a voluntary participation system. In fact, because of the following elemental facts, neither the original jurisdiction government nor Corp. U.S. could possibly lawfully make such a program mandatory.

All authority in government comes from the people.

The Constitution forbids government from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law.

The Constitution forbids government from interfering with the obligations of contracts.

None of the people, either individually or collectively, possess the authority to mandate that any other man, woman or child must hold a government created name, number or card in order to live, own property or privately transact any form of relationship with any other party.

If the people do not possess a particular authority, they cannot possibly grant that which they do not possess to the government.

Therefore, because neither you nor I, nor any other party possesses the lawful authority to mandate such an obligation upon any other man, woman or child, the people cannot collectively possess such an authority; accordingly, though neither the original jurisdiction government nor Corp. U.S. can possibly mandate the Social Security system upon the people, no law limits Corp. U.S. from offering such a Social Security card (hereinafter “SSC”) holding opportunity from the people; should the people individually voluntarily accept such a relationship when offered.

In fact, though participation in the system can only be required if you want to claim a benefit that is only provided within the system, recent events almost make this myth a reality. The recent events we are referring to are those authoritarian acts related to Homeland Security and Øbama Care.

Soon, we will flesh out this article with the elements that prove the facts of this myth. Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 10:
The Social Security card is: “your Social Security card;” and/or, the Social Security Number is: “your Social Security Number.”

On the onset of creating a cardholder relationship, the Social Security Administration (hereinafter: “SSA”) delivers documents to potential cardholders that include the Social Security card (hereinafter “SSC”). Those documents make it quite clear that the “Social Security card belongs to the United States government” and not to you (the man, woman or child to whom the envelope containing the SSC is delivered). Further, virtually every SSC that has ever been issued clearly states, right on the card, words to the effect of:“This card belongs to the United States government and
you must
return it if we ask for it.”

A close review of the law proves out this exact same point; both the SSC and the Social Security Number (hereinafter “SSN”) are the property of the Corp. U.S., through its agent, the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”). Regardless of what you and or our society have come accustomed to calling it—there are no exceptions!

But, that is not the worst thing about this myth. The worst thing is that by getting you to think of the SSC as “your card”, and/or of the SSN as “your number”, they get you to ignore the actual facts and nature of the relationship.

So, let’s go back and review that relationship from its historical beginning; which we referred to at the end of our presentation of Corp. U.S. Myth 6, above. Therein we noted that when Corp. U.S. went bankrupt to the Federal Reserve Bank (hereinafter: “FRB”) the FRB required that Corp. U.S. start paying at least the interest on their outstanding debt. To do so, Corp. U.S. needed a new source for funding; respectively, Corp. U.S. passed and enacted the Social Security Act of 1935; under which Act Corp. U.S. created new agency called the SSA and started marketing a program the Corp. U.S. President called: “The New Deal”. In reality, it was simply the means for generating the excess capital Corp. U.S. needed to start paying said outstanding debt’s interest.

However, the program had far further reaching effects for the people of the United States of America and the world. Prior to Corp. U.S.’ implementation of said Act, neither the government nor Corp. U.S. had the power or authority to control the people; and, Corp. U.S. continued to manage the affairs of government in the frame of the Constitutional Republic. However, notice what happened as they implemented the Social Security program.

Using a SSA supplied SS-5 application form, anyone can apply for a cardholder relationship for either themselves or for any other qualifying party. The Social Security Administration uses the information they take off of such SS5 forms to “create a name and number”, which the SSA registers, in a database of cardholders, along with relevant information regarding the respective application. The SSA then prints said name and number on a pre-printed Social Security card (hereinafter “SSC”) and sends a package including the SSC to its recipient cardholder. The recipient receives the package. The contents of the package (including the SSC itself) plainly reserves that the SSC does not belong to the recipient; rather, the SSC remains the property of Corp. U.S. The package also plainly instructs the recipient to verify their acceptance of the relationship by activating the SSC with a signature act; if the recipient is willing to accept the responsibilities that go along with the SSC; which include: the SSC is to be held in a safe place until such time as its actual owner wants it back. The SSC is not transferable and the SSC cannot be used in any unlawful way. Corp. U.S. also reserves the right to request the return of the SSC at any time—and that is all.

Looking over this relationship, one will discover all of the elements of a Revocable Trust (see: Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole) are clearly part of this relationship. Therefore, the SSA created relationship inherent to the SSC cardholder relationship is that of a Trust, which trust remains an agency of Corp. U.S. under Corp. U.S’. direct control; through congressional acts. Corp. U.S. publications regarding the relationship also make it quite clear that: ‘the name and number on the card uniquely distinguish the cardholder (the trust), and its account, from any people with the same or with a similar name.’

Now, given the facts of the SSA cardholder relationship, let’s look at how SSC cardholders interface with FRNs and or Money; and, at this point take notice of the fact that FRNs are not now and never have been “money”; rather, from the actual records of our history we learned they are merely transaction instruments that were rented by Corp. U.S. (in their bankruptcy) and marketed into circulation. On their face, they simply appear to be notes (likely made in compliance with the law of notes); respectively, their appearance leaves one with the belief that they may be bearer notes with no facially published due date; which, by law, indicates that they are due and payable on demand. And, whereas their specific conditions of existence are not otherwise described on the note, they can only compel redemption in like kind. That is to say, if you present them to their maker you can only count on getting back more notes of the same nature. Whereas, the note was generated for Corp. U.S., who remains under the control of its 1933 bankruptcy, the note cannot be an instrument of substance; rather, it remains a rented transaction instrument signifying said bankruptcy debt. In other words, the FRB arbitrarily creates FRNs (at will, without actual monetary value or substance) so it can rent them to Corp. U.S.’ to use as instruments of exchange to manage their bankruptcy.

So, let’s take a look at the actual relationships wherein FRNs are used; starting with the employer employee relationship; because, that is the source where most people come into contact with the FRNs; or, with some instrument representing the same:

The employee is a person identified by its name and SSN, therefore it is simply an agency trust of Corp. U.S.

The employer is ultimately just another agency for Corp. U.S. To show this we remind you the employer is a person (company, corporation, individual) that has an Employer Identification Number (hereinafter “EIN”). Originally the EIN was issued by the Social Security Administration in accord with the Social Security Act of 1935, today they are issued on application by IRS; all such numbers are ultimately related to, and operated under an SSN or another EIN; thus, all such parties with such numbers (Taxpayer Identification Numbers (hereinafter “TIN”)) are merely agencies of Corp. U.S.

In accord with the terms of the employment agreement between such employers and their employees, the employee provides the contracted goods and or services and the employer remunerates the funds required by the agreement. Now considering that the relationship is in reality made between two separate agencies of the same organization (Corp. U.S.), is there any need for money in such a transaction?

The answer is: “No.” The transaction could easily be (and often is, through related banking transactions) completed by a debit entry from the one agency (employer), which is balanced out by a credit to the other agency (employee). No money is needed. However, where there are hundreds of millions of such agencies, tracking them in 1935 would have been impossible without some device that could be totally controlled by the specific agencies involved in the transactions themselves.

Enter the FRN. Though it appears to be a debt instrument, in reality it is simply an official transaction instrument used to formally exchange debits and credits between Corp. U.S. agencies. It therefore requires no backing and can be generated in accord with the needs for its flow in circulation.

The final step: once the employee has been remunerated with such “funds” they can go to a merchant and exchange the funds for hard assets, like: food, shelter, clothing and transportation. In virtually every case today, such exchanges are made with other Corp. U.S. agencies; which agencies are exemplified by their own respective TINs. Thus, again, no money is needed and the FRN or any other instrument or respective accounting representing the same will suffice.

Now, at this point, it is extremely important to notice that though each such so created trust started out merely holding the SSC the SSA initially provided, as a matter of law, all of the property ever subsequently acquired through the use of such a cardholder’s name and/or SSN also becomes the property of such cardholder; just like the SSC; and, so, all such property remains the property of the agency trust’s beneficiary. In other words as a matter of law:

Corp. U.S. is the lawful owner of all property acquired through the use of a SSN.

Respectively, given the fact that virtually all transactions made in the United States today are made by someone using a SSN; and, that situation is compounded by the fact that they also make those transactions either using FRNs or using instruments derived from the use of such FRNs. Wherefore, ask yourself: “What do you call a form of government wherein the government or its agencies own virtually all of the personal property held within the regime?”

The answer is: “Communism.”

Therefore, as noted above, the worst thing about this myth is when you think of the SSC as “your card” and/or of the SSN as “your number” you ignore the facts and nature of the actual relationship; that is:

As a matter of law, the SSC is now and will always only be the property of Corp. U.S.

create an agency relationship between the cardholder and Corp. U.S.;
the controlling elements of which agency relationship are:

Corp. U.S retains ability to control the trust by terminating it at any time; and,

Corp. U.S. retains the ability to control distributions from the trust to its beneficiary by, at any time:

adjusting F.I.C.A.; and/or,

by adding other statutory controls (as taxes, etc.) that will compel distributions from the trust to its beneficiary (Corp. U.S.).

As the Beneficiary of all such agency trusts, Corp. U.S. retains actual ownership of all property that is ever acquired through the use of the SSC and/or the SSN.

Again, the worst thing about this myth is when you think of the SSC as “your card” and/or of the SSN as “your number” you ignore the fact that, as a matter of law:

Everything you thought you owned actually belongs to Corp. U.S. !!!And, though you can live in a Constitutional Republic you have voluntarily chosen to
live under the communistic control of Corp. U.S. !!!

At Team Law, we can help you learn how to learn the law to dramatically use this situation to your advantage; and, to, respectively,
help restore our original jurisdiction government by learning to apply the law and use it to your advantage. Even in our time, we can overcome the tyranny we allowed to take place by living in ignorance. We can help you learn how to learn to apply the law while maintaining the peace, keeping food on the table, fuel in our homes & cars and rebuild our nation and its economy.

Please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn; so, you can apply the law to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future.
You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
What are you willing to do to get that change?
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make that change; and,
Make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 11:
“Your Social Security” is “Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance.”

The Supreme Court has already well ruled on this topic acknowledging that there is no Social Security: insurance; retirement or any other kind of contractual entitlement program related to Social Security Benefits. In fact, they showed that there is no Social Security fund into which funds are taken from paychecks; rather, the F.I.C.A. funds (deducted from taxpayer’s paychecks) go directly into the general funds of the Corp. U.S. Treasury. Respectively, all funds taken in accord with the Social Security Act of 1935, et seq. are directly placed into said Treasury; where Congress is free to use them for any lawful purpose they desire; just as they would with any other funds held therein.

For more information about what the Social security program is, be sure to review Corp. U.S’. Myth 9 (above).

Soon, we will flesh out this article with the elements that prove the facts of this myth. Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 12:
“The courts have recognized that Barrack Øbama is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.”

In spite of the obvious facts regarding the meaning of the constitutional phrase: “natural born Citizen” (see: Corp. U.S. Myth 13), some ignorant people still promote the myth that alleges that Barrack Øbama is a “natural Born Citizen” as is required by the Constitution. One website that supports that myth is: “Øbama Conspiracy Theories” (hereinafter: “ØCT”); respectively, that site has a page titled: “Recent court rulings on presidential eligibility”, that is supposed to show the validity of that myth. Wherefore, it seems like the best way to debunk that myth might be to simply review that page by simply showing the facts behind those cases and expose the specious logic and spurious rhetoric used to create the bogus opinions loaded within those moot cases.

The “Øbama as President” supporters contest that because of opinions published in cases (such as those shown below) there is no cause for taking the necessary legal actions (as exemplified in theCall to Action) that would lawfully compel the Senate to remove Barrack Øbama from office. We disagree!

With only one exception, every such case from said “Recent court rulings on presidential eligibility” was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted or lack of standing to sue—in fact, each of the respective courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases the respective plaintiffs filed. Accordingly, none of those courts possessed the jurisdiction necessary to hear any of those cases that were brought before them; thus, their opinions regarding the subject matter in question was moot and had no bearing on the matter at all. To demonstrate that fact, we will review each of those cases in the following outline. Please notice that throughout the review the initial numbered paragraph of each section begins with a court case name and (for educational purposes) contains the mythological opinion expressed (or quoted) by the authors of the “ØCT” website; wherefore, that paragraph presents the bogus allegations/conclusions from that site; respectively, in the lines that follow each section’s opening paragraph, we will debunk those bogus allegations/conclusions. The next section begins with the next ordinally numbered paragraph followed by a quote from the ØCT page beginning with a court case name. We hope you find the following both educational and supportive:

Øbama Cases

Review of court rulings on presidential eligibility

"Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency”"

The first of three primary flaws with this case having any relevance on the matter of Øbama’s candidacy is that this case first ruled that the Plaintiff had no standing to bring the case at all; thus, this case, as a matter of law, cannot set any precedent for the matter of candidacy because the case never acquired standing for an argument. Therefore, regardless of any pleadings filed in the case, and regardless of the Court’s reviewing those pleadings, the case was never argued and cannot be used to imply any viable ruling beyond the fact that the case had no standing to be heard.

The second primary flaw with this case having any relevance on the matter of Øbama’s candidacy is the Court’s Order partially quoted above (Hollander v. McCain, at pg. 5) and repeated here with the full relevant part states: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,” However:

Though the Court cited: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649; that case has absolutely nothing to do with, and makes no reference to either ‘Presidential candidacy’ or the “natural born citizen” requirement for Presidential candidacy; wherefore, it is misquoted, off-point and has no meritorious application to this subject matter.

The New Hampshire Court already recognized in its ruling that it does not have standing to rule on the ‘Presidential candidacy’; so, when, after citing US v. Wong Kim Ark, it voiced its conclusion in error: “and thus eligible for the presidency, see, e.g., Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (dicta)” it had no standing to make that errant conclusion;

Further, after voicing that errant conclusion the court cited: “Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (dicta)” as if it was supportive of that errant conclusion. However, Schneider v. Rusk does not support that errant opinion; in fact, in Schneider v. Rusk, the Supreme Court clearly rules exactly the opposite of the New Hampshire court’s errant conclusion regarding the 14th Amendment; check it out:

“Congress has the right to legislate with respect to the general class…Congress here…was aiming only to regulate and…what Congress did had been deemed appropriate not only by this country but by many others and is in keeping with traditional American concepts of citizenship.

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, "becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual." Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 624; Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658.” (red text emphasis added)

Please read the red text portion of that quote again and notice that, as a matter of fact, native born citizens have existed long before the Constitution was penned; thus, it should be quite obvious that they do not derive any of their rights from the 14th Amendment. Respectively, that is an obvious error in the Supreme Court’s ruling—because native born citizens existed prior to the 14th Amendment it is obvious that their rights were never derived from § 1 of the 14th Amendment. Respectively, even though such errors can exist in court rulings, those errors remain errors and cannot reasonably be used as precedent setting elements for any case that may follow them and the slightest challenge will automatically set grounds for an appellate overthrow of such following ruling.

Wherefore, given that every one of those cases cited within that last quote confirms both that Congress does not have the power to limit or grant rights that are naturally inherent to people and that, respectively, the naturalized citizen cannot be made eligible to be President by an act of Congress; therefore, it should be quite clear that the United States Supreme Court has clearly distinguished that the only type of citizen that can qualify for the office of President of the United States of America is a: “natural born Citizen”; not a: “naturalized citizen” and not merely a: “native born” citizen; only a: “natural born Citizen” can qualify for that office. Respectively, the Court made its third primary flaw when it misapplied the US v. Wong Kim Ark and the Schneider v. Rusk cases in contradiction to the United States Supreme Court’s rulings regarding the same.

Respectively, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject manner and should never be followed.

"Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”"

The first of at least four primary flaws with this case having any relevance on the matter of either Øbama’s candidacy or the definition of the Constitution’s phrase: “natural born Citizen” is the Appellate Court first ruled regarding the lower court’s Order dismissing the case for the cause that “the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”; thus, this case, as a matter of law, cannot set any precedent for the matter of candidacy because the case never acquired standing for an argument. Therefore, as a matter of law, regardless of any pleadings filed in the case, and regardless of the Court’s review of such pleadings, the case cannot be used to imply any viable ruling beyond the fact that: “the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

The second primary flaw: using cases that were misapplied to the argument, as shown above, does not render a cause for making a conclusion based upon the misapplied argument. As shown above, the Wong Kim Ark case provided no relevant “guidance” regarding either (a) the matter of the meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” as it was used in the Constitution or (b) the matter qualifications for serving in the Presidency; wherefore, the court erred by making that statement.

The third primary flaw: the Court erred when it ruled: “Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States”; that amendment does not designate “who is a citizen”; rather, it merely designates that regardless of whether a citizen is born or naturalized both those born and those naturalized are citizens both of the nation and of the nation’s respective states. Respectively, it is a well known fact that the people [with their natural god given inherent rights] existed long before the government; and under their (the peoples’) God given inherent authority they formed the government; with its Congress; wherefore, though the people maintain the authority to create or change Congress, Congress has neither the capacity to change the people nor to modify the rights of the people (Constitution 9th and 10th articles of Amendment); respectively, Congress does not possess the authority to “govern” “who is”, or who is not, either a “native citizen” or a “natural born Citizen.” The United States Supreme Court’s put it this way in Osborn v. Bank of United States:

“…the party may originate under a law … and …Congress may…give a naturalized citizen, who is the mere creature of a law, a right to sue in the Courts of the United States….“…the act of Congress …proceeds to bestow upon the being it has made, all the faculties and capacities which that being possesses. Every act …grows out of this law, and is tested by it.“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress… . He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction.”

Then years later the Court again confirmed that distinction as follows:

“Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country "save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22.”

Respectively, it is clear that neither Congress nor the 14th Article of amendment can govern the existence or nature of a “natural born Citizen”; respectively, neither Congress nor said 14th Article can govern or redefine the nature or meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” as it was used in the Constitution to control access to the Presidency.

The fourth primary flaw: the court provided no evidence, at all, of any relevant argument, or supportive case law, that would give cause for their opined conclusion that both a “native born citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” are the same thing. All of the cases they referred to that dealt with citizenship either addressed the nature of a naturalized citizen or the nature of a native citizen; none of them addressed the nature of a “natural born Citizen”; which term is not otherwise defined in the Constitution; wherefore, the meaning of the term must be taken in context of its usage by the framers of the Constitution in the time of their using that phrase. Respectively, the rules of the English language alone designate that “natural born” is an adjective phrase modifying the proper noun “Citizen”. Thus, the phrase must refer to that nature of citizenship that is defined by natural birth. And, the only condition of natural birth that defines citizenship, regardless of any other consideration, is that condition where both the mother and the father of the child are citizens of the same country. If either parent of the child is a citizen of a different country then the citizenship of the child is a matter of law, not nature. Only in the condition of both parents being citizens of the same country is the citizenship of the child a function of the natural birth of the child. Respectively, where the phrase “native born” defines the condition of where (on the soil of what nation) a child is born, the phrase “natural born Citizen” clearly defines the condition that both parents are citizens of the same country—regardless of where the child was born. Respectively, given that those two distinctively different phrases have distinctively different meanings the court’s exchanging the two as if they were interchangeable in also an obvious and critical error no one had opportunity to contest.

Though we have this listed as the fifth primary flaw, this flaw is the reason other courts errantly cite this case; and, as such, it most damning of the flaws of this Indiana case: in this flaw, the court accurately proposed that to understand the constitutionally undefined term “natural born Citizen” we must go back to the time, and context, when the framers of the Constitution used that phrase; however, rather than staying on-point with the issue of a “natural born Citizen” in the United States of America, they instead take an off-point tangent with a cursory review the English law (of that time) regarding subjugation to the King of England. Of course, at that time, the only people in the U.S.A. that were subjects of any other person were slaves—and as a matter of law, slaves were property not citizens. Respectively, subjugation and citizenship are two entirely different matters; and, subjugation has no relationship to the constitutional phrase “natural born Citizen”. Respectively, though English law both then and now recognizes that natural born citizenship is defined by the common citizenship of both parents, subjugation is defined by presence within the realm of the King—that is, if you are present (within the realm of the King) and do not have diplomatic immunity, you are subject to the King; regardless of your citizenship. Thus, when the Indiana court takes off on the unrelated tangent if subjugation, they made a critical error that rendered anything else they had to say on the matter irrelevant.

Nonetheless, because that court (even though it has no jurisdiction over the matter) took that tangent and so many others cited that case (as if it had merit on the matter) we will further address the distinction in law between subjects in Great Britain’s feudal system and citizens in the U.S.A. Great Britain’s feudal system is a class system that recognizes everyone in Great Britain (other than those protected by diplomatic immunity) is subject to the King. In fact, in Great Britain, the master group of “people” is divided into the following classes of people: (1) the Sovereign (that is the King and or Queen); (2) subjects; and, (3) aliens. The class of subjects is further divided into either “free” or “unfree” people and in countries within the realm (Domain controlled by the King) where slaves are permitted there may also be slaves (which are not considered as people; rather, slaves are property). Thus, slaves do not fit within the classes of “people” unless they become “free” by some action of law. Respectively, the unfree people include the subclasses of: serfs, bondmen/bondwomen/indentured and “villeins”. Villeins includes but is not limited to people that were born of parents that are not both citizens of Great Britain; regardless of where the child is born. Illegitimate children (unless they are the progeny of a slave) are considered “free” because they are not related to any lawful right to inherit anything from anyone. Only “free” people can have or attain the class status of “citizen”; and, only citizens (or those of a higher class) can have either the right of suffrage (the right to vote) or the right to hold office. The principle of “Citizenship” in Great Britain is, to this day, derived from Ancient Roman Law; as quoted here from the Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica:

“‘Civitas’, plural Civitates, citizenship in ancient Rome. Roman citizenship was acquired by birth if both parents were Roman citizens (cives)”.

Though, it is not necessary for us to, here, present a legal brief or treatise on this matter (showing the distinction between each of these classes in the feudal system of Great Britain (there are many classes between the throne of the King and the lowliest unfree peasant), we will here address only these final points: in Great Britain, as in Rome, there was a significant difference between citizens and all others—citizenship was not only a matter of parentage wherein children naturally born (not adopted), it was a matter directly tied to the property owned by those parents, their right to vote and hold office in that venue. Thus, whenever a citizen was introduced to another person their standing as citizen was announce like this: “I am pleased to introduce ‘John of Nottingham’.” Notice the name of the city or parcel of land from which their inheritance came was announced to the person’s name; if the person being announced was of the peerage (noble birth) then their title comes before the name and the family name follows. Respectively, in Great Britain (a feudal monarchy), the only party that owns land in the entire monarchy is the King and/or Queen. Thus, the final point of distinction between citizens in the U.S.A. and subjects in Great Britain is: in Great Britain only the King and/or Queen are Sovereign and can own Land; yet, in the U.S.A none of the people are subjects and all of the people have the sovereign right to own land. Thus, the Constitutional phrase: “natural born Citizen” has no relation the issue of subjugation in Great Britain; and, to this day that phrase has the same meaning it did at the time when the framers of our Constitution penned those words, as it is and was in Great Britain and as it was, even back to the time of ancient Roman Law; and that meaning is paraphrased here as follows: “natural born Citizenship in the U.S.A. is acquired only when both parents of the child are citizens of the U.S.A. at the time of the birth of the child.”

Again, back to the first of the five listed primary flaws: the reason no one had opportunity to contest this obviously erroneous ruling is because the only cause for appeal that could possibly be raised before this court was the one cause created by the court’s ruling—“the case failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted”. To that cause that court ruled: “(W)e note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party's nominee for the presidency. The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do they develop a cogent legal argument stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the candidates.” Respectively, the court affirmed the lower court’s order to dismiss. Then, though the issues of the case were moot, the court entertained the moot, de novo, review as noted above. However, we must remember that the court has already acknowledged that it does not have jurisdiction over that subject matter; respectively, it is not appealable. In other words, the moot review is irrelevant to the ruling. The bottom line: because no limitation in law limits someone that does not qualify for the office from running for the office of President; thus, the relief requested could not be granted by the Indiana Court system; and, accordingly, the meaning of the constitutional phrase: “natural born Citizen” is beyond the scope of the Indiana court’s jurisdiction; and cannot stand as precedent setting in any jurisdiction.

Respectively, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject manner and should never be followed.

"Tisdale v. Øbama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”"

Though the quote listed above appears to be a quote from this court it is actually the same misquoted reference we responded to in our response to Hollander at paragraph 1 above; respectively, there is no point in repeating that response here.

Again though this case was dismissed because it had no standing in the Federal court, Tisdale appealed the case at Tisdale v. Øbama, Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, No. 12-1124 (2012); where we learn that the nature of the underlying case was a USC Title 42 § 1983 complaint; however, Title 42 § 1983 is a civil rights statute that relates only to parties that violate someone’s civil rights “under the color of State law”. Accordingly, the case described nothing that could be possibly be construed as such a “color of State Law” violation. Thus, the court ruled the case had no standing. Though the Trial Court’s Order did not go into that matter (we only learned that the case was a Title 42 issue from the subsequent Appeal), regardless of any other issue, the court was right in ruling that the case had no standing because it presented no standing for a Title 42 § 1983 cause of action.

Respectively, given that the case had no standing the only issue anyone could possibly appeal would be the court’s actual ruling that the case had no standing; respectively any opinions voiced by the court outside of that issue alone would have no basis for appeal; so, as a matter of law, such opinions expressed by a court can never set a precedent because they were never made in a way where any party had a chance to contest the same. Thus, they merely stand as the opinion of the man that expressed the opinion and have no real weight in law at all.

Respectively, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject manner and should never be followed.

"Purpura v. Øbama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Øbama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Øbama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Øbama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”"

This case was brought as an administrative action before the New Jersey Secretary of State; respectively, it was heard before an administrative law judge (hereinafter “ALJ”) who made a determination that was provided as an advisement to the Secretary of State; who then ruled on the matter following that advisement. The case was later appealed to the New Jersey Court of Appeals (see: Purpura v. Øbama); where the appellate court affirmed the Secretary of State’s opinion. However, the advisement from the ALJ followed the Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana ruling as if it had merit and as with that case went off-point on the issue of subjugation to a king instead of natural born citizenship and ignored the fact that even English law both then and now recognizes the distinction between native born and natural born.

However, the courts correctly ruled that the issue of the presidential candidate capacity to serve in the office has nothing to do with their ability to be nominated to run for office—wherefore again, the case was dismissed because it raised no meritorious cause of action.

Where New Jersey again, followed the same errors and cited the above errant arguments that were proposed, without option for appeal or opposing argument, those opinions remain as non precedent setting opinions all of which, as a matter of law, remain in error—however, because the plaintiffs failed to proceed forward contesting the court’s following those errant arguments the arguments that could have been raised were never raised and the issue was dropped by the Plaintiff/Appellants’ failure to prosecute.

Respectively, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject manner and should never be followed.

"Voeltz v. Øbama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]"

Again, the Plaintiff’s “failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted” and that removed any issue beyond that cause from any elemental cause of appeal. In this case, at the time when the case was brought, Øbama was not even a candidate for the election in that State! Wherefore, the case was totally frivolous. It was amazing that the court even allowed it to have a review.

In the Court’s Order the judge did venture into the off-point subject matter and followed the same misquoted references from Hollander and Ankney; to which we responded paragraphs 1 and 2 above; respectively, there is no point in repeating those responses again here.

Respectively, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject manner and should never be followed.

"Voeltz v. Øbama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Øbama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny]."

In this case, the Florida 2nd Judicial Circuit Court correctly ruled that the Plaintiff filed a complaint for relief under Florida Statutes § 102.168 but failed to “and cannot state a cause of action for the relief requested” because that statute “is not applicable to the nomination of a candidate for the Office of President of the United States.” Nonetheless, the court took the time to respond further to the case and in its Order dismissing the case the court correctly ruled: “this Court lacks the jurisdiction to consider” the matter. The Plaintiff’s attorney offered to amend the complaint; but, the Court correctly ruled that ‘nothing could be done to amend the complaint to correct its defects’. At that point, the Court reviewed the same cases referenced above and followed the same pattern of misquoting and misapplying those cases as if any of those rulings were either meritorious or applicable. Of course, that is the danger of such courts voicing opinions beyond the scope of that which can be argued either in those courts or on appeal. The fact that such Orders are published even though they have no merit and fail under the test of actual historical facts and law, they appear even though as a matter of law they cannot possibly set any precedent or be considered as a valid opinion of any court.

Even though the underlying case had no merit, in 2013 the Plaintiff’s frivolously appealed the case to the Florida 1st District Court of Appeals [recorded at: 134 So.3d 1049 (2013)]; where the appeal correctly was: “DISMISSED as moot.” : the Appellant then petitioned that court for a rehearing; which was also: “DISMISSED as moot.” The Appellant then appealed the case to the Florida Supreme Court with a motion for a Writ of Mandamus [recorded at: 126 So.3d 1059 (2013)]; which appeal, with its motions, was also denied and that decision was not published—again, the underlying case was moot; wherefore, the appeals were frivolous. Again, each of those appellate courts were correct in their ruling of the case as “moot”—it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and thus had no standing—period.

The same remains the affect of the extraneous opinions of each of these courts that express opinions on what they think would have happened if such a case would have been properly brought in a proper venue under a proper cause of action—such opinions can set no precedent and have no standing in law. Of course, when court after court cites back to such errant opinions as if they had merit and were precedent setting it creates the appearance to others ignorant of how the law actually works making it appear as if the issues therein related may have merit; and, that is exactly why the people must learn the truth and learn to use the law to properly raise this issue in a proper venue where the matter can be resolved in accord with the law. Respectively, in such cases, if the opposition raises such frivolous arguments then the actual facts, law and history can easily be shown to defeat such frivolous arguments—only then will the truth prevail.

Respectively, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject manner and should never be followed.

"Allen v. Øbama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Øbama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”"

The heading of the internet based article this entire review was made against is: “Øbama Conspiracy Theories: Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud since 2008”; and quote here, in their 7th paragraph, (quoted above) presented out of context, as if it were argument, is the one that demonstrates the age old adage of the “pot calling the kettle black”; for, therein they allege that the Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. case sets a “precedent fully support(ing the allegation) that President Øbama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution most obvious” (parenthetical content added for clarity replacing an “s”). That case has nothing whatsoever to do with any issue related to citizenship, presidential qualifications or any issue related to the same; respectively, it has been cited by the Arizona courts many times to designate the fact that Arizona courts are required to follow precedents set by the United States Supreme Court; however, in this case, the United States Supreme Court has set no precedent defining the constitutional term “natural born Citizen”; which, is the very reason for so many varying opinions regarding that issue. Respectively, as is properly noted in the Indiana’s Ankeny v. Governor ruling, because the term is not defined in the Constitution, as a matter of law it falls to the meaning of the term as it was used by the framers of the Constitution at the time when the Constitution was formed. Wherefore, as referenced above, the definition of that phrase both at that time and now is: “(T)he only condition of natural birth that defines citizenship, regardless of any other consideration, is that condition where both the mother and the father of the child are citizens of the same country.”

Placing that quote back in context of the Arizona court’s ruling we find that the only case the court cited that could possibly be alleged as one related in any way to citizenship is US v Wong, ibid.; and, as noted above that case has nothing whatsoever to do with either the constitutional term: “natural born Citizen” or the qualifications of anyone running for President of the United States; so again, the Arizona court shows no precedent set by any court related to that topic.

As with the other frivolous cases reviewed above; even though this court already recognized that it has no jurisdiction to have a viable opinion on the matter, it went on to limitedly review the issue of Øbama’s candidacy merely to say if it could rule on such a matter it was of the opinion that it would follow the cases cited above as if they were precedent setting. Of course, they are not as we have already shown.

Much like the Florida based cases (above), in this case the Plaintiff raises a ballot challenge pursuant to State statutes that do not apply to candidates for federal offices; further, the Plaintiff failed to include the required parties for such a challenge (if it were to have merit); accordingly, the Court had no choice but to dismiss the case with prejudice (meaning the same issue cannot be resubmitted), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Respectively, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject manner and should never be followed.

"Farrar (et al.) v. Øbama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Øbama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”"

This administrative case was actually brought to the Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, as a Ballot Challenge under a properly cited Georgia statute; respectively, it is the only challenge we have seen that was ever properly brought before a board of review (either judicial or administrative) wherein the hearing authority possessed the jurisdiction to rule on the matter as it was presented. Respectively, in accord with law, the Secretary of State set a hearing for advisement before an ALJ, Michael Malihi. However, in that hearing, most of what the Petitioners’ presented was off-point from the real issue at hand—that being whether President Barrack Øbama was constitutionally qualified to serve in the office of President—Georgia law forbids anyone to be named on their ballots if the candidate does not qualify for the office for which the candidate is running. A review of the ALJ’s Opinion shows the ALJ was of the opinion that Mr. Øbama was qualified for the office and the ALJ recommended that Opinion to the Secretary of State; who accepted that Opinion as the State’s Opinion. The Petitioner’s filed for a court review; which was denied. They also subsequently filed for a U.S. Supreme Court review; which was also denied. Quite frankly, based on the hodgepodge of irrelevant arguments presented to the ALJ there was no reasonable cause for the requested reviews or appeals. The bottom line: no relevant argument was presented by the petitioners against the ALJ’s review.

The problem with this case was not that the case had no merit—it did; that is why the Secretary of State sent it for review before the ALJ; however, the only aspect of the case that had merit was the challenge that Barrack Øbama is not a “natural born Citizen” (as is required by the Constitution). However, on that point, the Petitioners failed to present any reasonable support other than by the allegation (supported by clear uncontested evidence) that Barrack Øbama Sr. was not a Citizen. Respectively, the petitioners failed to address, in any pleadings before the court, the controversy surrounding that issue (the meaning of the constitutional phrase) either in the pleadings or is contest to the ALJ’s Opinion. Respectively, the ALJ merely followed the bogus opinion if the Indiana court in Ankney v. Governor, ibid.; which we already showed (above). However, in our review of that case (above) we clearly showed that court reviewed the meaning of “natural born subject” in a monarchy, which has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in our “Nation of Sovereigns” Constitutional Republic form of government. Thus, that court’s ruling was moot, made without jurisdiction and as such cannot possibly set a precedent in any jurisdiction. Again, the problem with this case was that the Plaintiffs failed to present a cogent case—in fact, because of the incredibly ineffective amateur-hour presentation of the case, our opinion is that it seems to have been presented by an agent provocateur; rather than, anyone that desired to win—it is simply all too easy a matter to show the true meaning of the constitutional phrase: “natural born Citizen”; and, the Ankeny case obviously has no merit—its argument is simply too easy to overcome with the simple facts.

Respectively, neither Ankney v. Governor of Indiana nor US v. Wong set any precedent for nor have any bearing on the issue: the definition of the constitutional term, “natural born Citizen”; respectively, resolving whether Barrack Øbama is a natural born Citizen.

However, as a as a matter of law, the fact that Mr. Øbama’s father was never a “Citizen” of the United States certainly defines the fact that ‘Mr. Øbama cannot possibly lawfully qualify for the Office of President of either the United States or The United States of America. Finally, those facts do not appear to have ever been brought before any court, or other board of review, that had lawful jurisdiction to hear the issue and make a relevant determination on that point.

Respectively, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject manner and should never be followed.

"Paige v. Øbama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical."

This was a Vermont Superior Court ruling; that is to say, it was heard and ruled by the lowest level county trial court (the court that can hear issues limited to no greater than $5,000) in the State. Nonetheless, though the court first acknowledged that the Plaintiff had no standing and the case no merit under any cause brought before the court; respectively, the court issued a summary dismissal.

However, the court determined that in the alternative the appeals court were to disagree with them they inferred that they would review the cause alleging that Barrack Øbama is not a natural born Citizen; but, alas, as with the other cases in this list they followed the same errant court decisions of: Wong, Hollander and Ankeny; as if they had merit—which they do not (as shown above).

Also, the bogus nature of this courts review is exemplified by its spurious allegation that there is no distinction between a person naturally born as a subject to a king and one who is a natural born Citizen of The United States of America. The people of this nation should never tolerate that the lives of those that fought for freedom of this nation in the “War of Independence” from Great Britain to be so grievously be looked upon; for it was that very distinction for which they fought—that distinction the differs a subject to a king from a natural born free man!

Respectively, as with the others in this review, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject manner and should never be followed.

"Fair v. Øbama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Øbama is eligible.]"

This case was originally heard before the lowest level county court in Maryland; where it was dismissed for: “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The Plaintiff appealed to the next level of county court: the Carrol County Circuit Court. It was at that level of court where the ruling cited above was made; and, that Circuit Court confirmed the lower court’s decision that the case was absent jurisdiction because:

The case failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; and,

The Amended Complaint was barred by “latches”; in other words, it was not timely filed.

However, in spite of the fact that both courts found that the case was absent jurisdiction to be heard, the court reviewed each of the plaintiff’s claims again spending most of its review on the issue of “natural born Citizen”. In that review the court referenced Ankeny but focused mostly on Wong to deliver their opinion that though the Wong court was not reviewing the issue of presidential capacity they did allegedly review the term natural born and native born as if they were the same. Yet the Supreme Court did not make that equation in Wong. This instant court took from Wong the therein necessity of understanding constitutional terms from the mind of their authors at the time, and in the context of, when they were written. We agree with that. Yet, when the court allegedly reviewed the “meaning of the terms” instead of reviewing the phrase “natural born Citizen” from the Constitution, they again reviewed the term “natural born subject and made the same error as did other courts; like the Vermont ruling we reviewed in paragraph 9. (above).

Respectively, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject manner and should never be followed.

"Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): “… the 14th Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that: There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702. Thus, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage.”"

Though the court recognized, and ruled that, it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter in question it expressed its opinion on the topic (quoted in last paragraph).

This case is one of the most absurd of all such cases; because:

It refers to a “slip opinion” order from the lowest level county court in New York State; in this case the: Kings County Supreme Court (in New York, the lowest level county court is deemed the “Supreme Court”; it is not an appellate court);

The opinion merely denied the plaintiff’s motion to renew and reargue the underlying case, which was “denied with prejudice” (which means the issue cannot be reheard or re-brought for any reason).

In the underlying case, the plaintiff was suing a laundry list of defendants with a baseless 45+ page complaint full of “fanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational” allegations. Respectively: “(v)arious defendants or groups of defendants presented to the Court eleven motions to dismiss, which were all granted.” Said Court on, “April 11, 2012”, issued its: “Decision and order that "[i]t is clear that plaintiff STRUNK: lacks standing; fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; fails to plead fraud with particularity; and, is barred by collateral estoppel. Also, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over most, if not all, defendants."” Said Court also found: “It is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to spend time on the instant action.”

The plaintiff didn’t get the message and continued to pursue the frivolous case until the court finally sanctioned him with a $10,000 fine for repeatedly filing frivolous attempts to rehear the case;

In the slip opinion referenced above the court reviewed the facts that the plaintiff had repeatedly filed such cases in various courts prior to this case and each time they were dismissed for the same causes;

Nonetheless, absent jurisdiction the court ruled: “Moreover, the Court will conduct a hearing to give plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, as to whether or not the Court should award costs and/or impose sanctions upon plaintiff STRUNK for his frivolous conduct.”

Respectively, when said court delivered its non-jurisdictional conclusion: “Thus, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage”, it is obvious that opinion is spurious, without merit and definitely doesn’t reflect the opinion of the United States Supreme Court who ruled, “Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country "save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22.”

Respectively, this case sets no precedent, has no merit related to the subject matter and should never be followed.

Conclusion:

Though it is clear that citizenship has only two sources [birth or naturalization], citizenship from either source is still citizenship (both in the nation and in the State); yet, there is still an obvious significant distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a native born citizen.

There is no contention regarding the fact that all persons that are “native born” (born within the United States) are citizens. Thus, the question remains whether there is a distinction between the term “native born citizen” and the constitutional phrase “natural born Citizen” (which remains undefined in the Constitution).

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion…In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. … The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." 124 U.S. 478.”

Accordingly, in our review of Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (above at paragraph "2.e.") we followed the “Standard for Review” to resolve the meaning of that term, “natural born Citizen”, was understood both by the framers of the Constitution and the people of Great Britain (both at that time and now) as having been derived from ancient Roman Law regarding natural born citizenship; that is to say:

“Citizenship is acquired by birth only if both parents are citizens.”

“Thus, the Constitutional phrase: “natural born Citizen”, to this day, has the same meaning it did at the time when the framers of our Constitution penned those words, as it is, and was, in Great Britain and as it was, even back to the time of ancient Roman Law, the meaning of that phrase as it was used by the framers of the Constitution is:

A “natural born Citizen” in the U.S.A. is:
“Anyone who’s natural born Mother and Father were both citizens of
The United States of America at the time of the birth of that child.”

Wherefore, given the fact that there is no law that prevents anyone from running for President if they follow the respective nomination procedures;

No action brought in any court contesting a candidate’s qualifications for office can possibly state a claim upon which relief can be granted;

Further, no person bringing such an action can possibly establish standing for bringing such a case; and,

Given the fact that the jurisdiction for raising contests against any candidate that is elected to the office of President Elect of the United States by the Electoral College rests upon Congress alone;

No action brought in any court contesting a President Elect’s qualifications for office can possibly state a claim upon which relief can be granted;

Further, no person bringing such an action can possibly establish standing for bringing such a case; and,

Given the fact that once a President of the United States is elected and seated the Senate is the only body that has jurisdiction to hear any contest against a President of the United States;

No action brought in any court contesting a seated President’s qualifications for office can possibly state a claim upon which relief can be granted;

Further, no person bringing such an action can possibly establish standing for bringing such a case; and,

Therefore, except as noted in paragraph 8 (where Georgia has a statutory cause of action available for a ballot challenge against any person that can’t qualify for the office), regardless of the cause alleged, no case brought in the courts against Barrack Øbama (regarding his candidacy for President of the United States) could possibly have ever stated a claim upon which relief could be granted; and, no plaintiff could have possibly presented such a case with standing to do so. Respectively, though there are many cases that were not mentioned in the ØCT page, a review of any and all of the existent cases (see Wikipedia: Barrack Øbama presidential eligibility litigation) would have the same results as this review shows for the cases on the ØCT page.

Nonetheless, that says nothing about the proper way to raise a timely challenge against what President Barrack Øbama, and others, did to get and keep him in office. Respectively, those options are shown on the QW-C2A.com website.

Please remember, Team Law is here to help people realize the importance of learning how to learn the Law; so, you can learn how to lawfully apply the law to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine the possibility that you can learn the law and notice that when you have accomplished that your future will have far more powerful opportunities for having a positive effect. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you learn how to make your wish come true!

For now, remember, though wishing and dreaming about a powerful and successful future are good exercises that can motivate you to study and learn, they do not automatically provide you with the real results you need in the here and now. To realize your dreams takes real action using proper procedures based upon the actual laws and applied in accord with the rules and laws of the state and nation where the action is applied. As we hope you noticed, for the reasons shown above, none of the actions presented either on the ØCT page or referenced in the Wikipedia page were filed by people having standing to file such actions and none of those parties filed a cause upon which relief could be granted. Respectively, people should learn from that.

Quite frankly, we believe it is all too clear that President Barrack Øbama is not a “natural born Citizen”; and thus, he cannot possibly lawfully qualify for the office of President; nonetheless, he was seated in that office by Congress. Therefore, he is the United States President. Further, as provided by the United States Constitution, only the United States Senate has jurisdiction to hear a contest against President Barrack Øbama; and only the United States Senate can impeach a United States President; thus, filing any form of court case against said President will fail every time.

The Bottom Line — because:

Other than nomination procedures (and the one exception regarding Georgia, noted above), no law limits anyone from running as a candidate for U.S. President;

Congress holds exclusive jurisdiction over verifying a President Elect’s qualification for office;

The U.S. Senate holds exclusive jurisdiction over contests against a U.S. President; i.e. impeachment;

Therefore, no court can possibly have jurisdiction to hear any issue regarding any of the causes so listed; wherefore cases raised in courts by plaintiffs raising such issues are always dismissed without the court ever getting subject matter jurisdiction over the bogus causes so raised. Respectively, opinions expressed by such courts are moot, cannot be argued, cannot be appealed and cannot set precedents for actions in other courts or venues.

Wherefore, this myth is debunked because no case has yet been filed in any court that had the subject matter jurisdiction to to hear, argue or review the issue at hand.

On May 1, 2014, we discussed this Myth on our morning Conference Call; which you can listen to now.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 13:
“Barrack Øbama was lawfully seated as the President of the United States.”

To resolve this myth we must first understand what the requirements are for lawfully seating a President of the United States. To ascertain those requirements, we turn to the United States Constitution at: Article 2 § 1. Clause 5, which states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, …, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Thus, we see that no person shall be eligible to the Office of President unless they:

are “a natural born Citizen”; and,

are at least 35 years of age; and,

have lived in the United States at lease 14 years.

Though each of those eligibility requirements are self-explanatory, the meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” came into question when the Democratic National Committee ran Barrack Øbama as their candidate for President in the 2008 Election. Because the phrase in question is not defined in the Constitution its definition is derived from common English Language usage of the phrase itself; more particularly, usage as the framers of the Constitution intended it at the time when they wrote the Constitution.

Yet, to begin our discovery of the meaning of the phrase we need to simply look at the phrase itself and see if its meaning is not defined by simply applying the English Language rules. That review reveals that the phrase, “natural born Citizen”, is a noun phrase based on the noun “Citizen” combined with the adjective modifiers, “natural born”. Therefore, we look to the conditions set by natural birth and ask the question regarding those modifiers: “What conditions of "natural birth" limitedly define the noun "Citizen"?” Respectively, we find that the only condition of natural birth that defines the nature of one’s citizenship is the condition where both the child’s Mother and Father are citizens of the same country. That is to say, the citizenship of a child is an automatic function of its natural birth only when, at the time of the child’s birth, both the child’s Mother and Father are citizens of the same country. Respectively, in all other conditions of birth, where the parents are not citizens of the same country, the citizenship of the child is a function of law; not the nature of its birth. Thus, we discover that the phrase: “natural born Citizen”, is, in fact, a very unique and definitive phrase that means exactly the same thing today that it meant when the framers of the Constitution wrote the Constitution.

In spite of that fact, since the Democratic National Committee ran Barrack Øbama as their candidate for President, the definition of the term, “natural born Citizen” has been attacked as if it might have all sorts of potentially different meanings; and, as shown in Corp. U.S. Myth 12 a number of courts have given some very different opinions of the meaning of the phrase. Still, as we showed in our review of 11 of those cases, those courts lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to review that phrase with anything more than their moot opinions. Respectfully, we hereafter show that a review of the circumstances surrounding the framers of the Constitution will easily prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the framers meant the phrase to mean exactly what the English Language indicates that it means to this day: “A “natural born Citizen” is any person that was naturally born of their Mother whose Mother and Father were both citizens of the United States of America at the time of the child’s birth.”

Nonetheless, on, January 20, 2013, Corp. U.S.’ Congress seated Barrack Øbama as President of the United States (Corp. U.S.), for his second term in that office. However, the fact that Mr. Øbama’s father was never a citizen of the United States makes it impossible for Mr. Øbama to be “a natural born Citizen” of the United States; therefore, the members of Congress that so seated Øbama in the office of President, absent constitution’s required vetting of that issue, each violated the Constitution by both failing to vet Barrack Øbama’s candidacy and by seating him in spite of the fact that his Father was never a Citizen of the United States.

Respectively, each member of Congress is now subject to an action seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto; which would remove each such member of Congress from their respective office. Accordingly, people all over the country are getting involved with the process that has been called “Operation Clean Sweep”. You can learn more about Operation Clean Sweep in the “Call to Action” or through QW-C2A.com.

Soon, we will further flesh out this article with the elements and records that prove the mythology of this myth. Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

More to come!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 14:
The D.A.R.E. mission: “Teaching students good decision-making skills to help them lead safe and healthy lives.

This myth was promoted by Corp. U.S.

Soon, we will flesh out this article with the elements that prove the facts of this myth. Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 15:
The feds adopted the “Common Core” education standards and the “No Child Left Behind” federal education law to improve the quality of student education in America.

This myth was promoted by Corp. U.S.

Soon, we will flesh out this article with the elements that prove the facts of this myth. Meanwhile, please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation. The first step is to imagine a powerful positive future. You can start by answering this question:“If you could make one righteous wish that would change any aspect of your life for the better—
What would that change be?”

Now, Notice what your life would be like if you already had that change now!
Go to our “Success Network” and let us help you make your wish come true!